GOP in the South: 3 things to know

Will Mississippi and Alabama residents give Mitt Romney his long-expected breakthrough?

With Super Tuesday not so decisive as promised by its name, the votes available to Republican candidates today are as vital as any before them. The 90 delegates offered by the Deep South states Alabama and Mississippi -- plus 20 from the liberal Pacific island of Hawaii -- could deliver a sizable boost to the Mitt Romney campaign. But this is the conservative heartland; so what for Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich?

1) Mitt: Southern man, ya'll?

Despite Romney's remark last week that the states were "a bit of an away game" for him, Alabama and Mississippi's delegates are very much in play for the frontrunner. Romney's health in the polls, though, may or may not have something to do with the vote-hustling techniques he's practiced in recent days:

 

2) The Dixie Vote's worth to Santorum/Gingrich

Polling Monday showed Romney and Gingrich neck-in-neck, with any leads within the margin of error. This resurgence for Newt complicates matters for Santorum: if Romney is to be denied the nomination, a clear second candidate should already be gathering momentum with US demographics other than those they've previously relied on. Yet since his two-week charge in February, the Santorum campaign has stalled. And now if he can't take the southern heartland, notable for its evangelical population and social conservativism, Rick looks unlikely to be man the GOP want. A win for Gingrich, meanwhile, would hardly clarify the race.

3) Obama, Rush and Darwin in the South

Some of the most interesting figures from two new polls by PPP are unrelated to the Republican candidates, such as those demonstrating the continued damage to the Rush Limbaugh brand and the views of Dixie Americans on interracial marriage.

One poll of note, though, does tell us something about the electorate drawn to each GOP candidate: in Mississippi, Gingrich is far ahead with the "Obama is a Muslim" voters, while in both states the comparatively more enlightened Republicans who believe "Obama is a Christian" are largely backing Romney. Just how enlightened they are is another question; only 26 per cent of Republican Alabamans and fewer Mississippians (22 per cent) believe in evolution. And who wins the votes of those who don't? That's largely Rick.

Alice Gribbin is a Teaching-Writing Fellow at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She was formerly the editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.